Book Critique: Mission Failure in the Post-Cold War Era

This book critique evaluates Mandelbaum's arguments in Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era. The author reveals the truth about the U.S. foreign policy and its failures after the Cold War. The analysis critiques Mandelbaum's thesis statement and evaluates the success stories presented in the book.

Running head: BOOK CRITIQUE 1
Book Critique
Name
Institution
Instructor

BOOK CRITIQUE 2
Introduction
Drawing from the title of the book, “Mission failure: America and the world in the post-
cold war era” there is a clear picture on what Mandelbaum wanted to achieve. He intends to
reveal the truth associated with the U.S. foreign policy and the failures accompanying its agenda
at the end of the cold war (Mead, 2013). The author captures the adverse effects of the U.S.
foreign policy and how it has trolled through President Bush through Barrack Obama’s
administration. He presents a fairground of facts dating back to the fall of Berlin wall in 1989
and that no government from then has not encountered failure, hence, this gives the book some
credit due to the author’s fair evaluation of various leadership (Mandelbaum, 2016).
Consequently, it offers insights on the significance of experts who oversee the U.S. foreign
policy. The essay will critique the book by evaluating the arguments presented by Mandelbaum.
Analysis/critique
Mandelbaum’s thesis statement has its backdrop on the United States’ failure on every
post-Cold War mission which the State has often engaged. He identified many factors that must
have contributed to what he termed as what he termed as mission failure. He claims that most of
the missions the country undertook in most countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq,
and in the Balkans were merely humanitarian and focused on societal transformation (Betts,
2017). Additionally, the author wedges in the aspect of Israel-Palestine issue within his
argument. Ideally, his intent here is wide off the mark because it is in the domain of the U.S.
citizenry that the United States did not participate in military intervention in any country. In
nearly all these dealings, the major aim of these missions was not dedicated on establishing
“Denmarks” or preferably a model of democracies, and economic transformation in the Middle
East as the author suggests (Mandelbaum, 2016). Instead, the main focus which he fails to
address was the fulfillment of the specific goals linked to U.S. national interests which were

BOOK CRITIQUE 3
eventually met. The author convincingly elaborated the failed efforts of peace-keeping mission
between the warring Israeli/Palestine and the prime issue of reinstating democracies which were
among President Bush’s official agenda. Nonetheless, he fails to capture the fact that these
intentions were noble and just because they were not met does not necessarily mean they should
not have been undertaken.
Many of the success stories that the author steadfastly makes assumptions on are quite
profound and include humanitarian aid of food shipment to Somalia to the starving populace.
Most parts of it was accomplished before the onset of the mission crackdown which led to failure
in the restoration of order and wrestling power from warlords, but the author gives more weight
to failed attempts alone such as the attacks meted on the U.S. military personnel which led to the
demise of many (Mandelbaum, 2016). Additionally, it restored stability and the legitimately-
elected government in Haiti under Jean Bertrand through a military coup (Mandelbaum, 2016).
Within the context of Mandelbaum’s argument, this was a failed mission since Haiti did not end
up as the expected Switzerland of the Caribbean. In another scenario, the author gives a different
gesture in Balkans that the attention concerning prosperity and stable economy in Bosnia and
Kosovo should not have been drive while the economy back home was dwindling.
The perfect piece of success that accompanied the peacekeeping mission that should be
highlighted is the end of bloodshed and the level of stability that reigned later and brought
normalcy in both countries. Moreover, the author reiterates how the issue on Iraq war was met
with stern outlook in the domain of the public. Therefore, he suggests that democratic
transformation was not the original mission but a foreign policy objective. Despite that, there
were positive results from the intervention that he gave assumptions such as the forceful removal
of the brutal dictator from power who financed terrorist acts across the Middle East (Henderson,
2013). The gesture has proven quite important globally even with retrospection now that the

BOOK CRITIQUE 4
purported mastermind of the perpetrated 9/11 attack which affected the U.S. greatly in history
was killed. However, financing the entire intervention was costly and bloody to the U.S. as the
author points out and this drained a lot of funds meant to reinforce the county’s economy.
Notably, we argue differently with a focus on International trade such as NAFTA and the
expansion of NATO (Mandelbaum, 2016). If Saddam continued reigning, the region would not
support harmonious trade fair.
Conversely, the U.S. citizenry was extremely paranoid about another heinous attack in
2002 and the subsequent years. Such threats were way too much for any sane society to
withstand. Thus, the mission was regarded as successful amid the high expenditure now that the
U.S. managed to depose the tyrant (Woodward, 2009). Concerning this, the post-9/11 in the U.S.
has not encountered any terrorist attack, and that helps justify the issue behind the expenditure
and helps minimize potential speculations relied upon by the author while trying to spearhead his
point.
Despite the limitations of his central thesis statement, the book harbors a large amount of
information regarding the significant challenges during the post-Cold War that faced the security
sector in the United States (Mandelbaum, 2016). Furthermore, he offers thoughtful insight
revolving around the reasons why the main objectives of democracy edification often resulted in
failure and the need to be revisited and reviewed by those concerned in national security decision
making to achieve better safety systems.
I believe that Mandelbaum is detailed and objective enough to uncover the truth. For
example, he explains why September 15, 2008 (the day of Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers
Bank) marks the moment when the United States understands that their military spending can not
be unlimited and that their global role will now be more small and modest: "In the future, the
United States will behave like a normal country" (p.8).

BOOK CRITIQUE 5
According to Mr. Mandelbaum, the international role of the United States since 1945 is
far from being a mistake and even less the source of current evils. The US position deserves, on
the contrary, to be celebrated: "The American power offers benefits to most people of the planet,
because the United States plays a major role, constructive and historically unprecedented in the
world. Massively and globally positive assessment. America has conclusively occupied the
necessary function of a "world government" (p.54). According to this author, she maintained
order, reassured those who were threatened, prevented nuclear proliferation, guaranteed oil flows
and offered the dollar as an international currency. The only problem is that Washington can no
longer take on this role - which is imperatively called to end. The reasoning here is exclusively
economic. For a long time, both Democratic and Republican administrations have financed this
"world government" with debt - now estimated at some $ 14 trillion. For at least two reasons,
this cannot continue (Gerges, 2014).
The first reason is related to entitlements. In 2008, the social security and medical
expenses (Medicare and Medicaid) score was 40% of the federal budget, or 4% of gross national
product (GNP). Given the imminent retirement of 77 million Americans born between 1946 and
1964, this budget will represent 18% of GNP by 2050 (Onea, 2013). The difference between
these mandatory expenditures and the tax projections amounts to $ 52,000 billion, or four times
the value of the annual US GNP. To finance this almost inconceivable amount, it would be
necessary to increase taxes by 150%, which is of course politically unthinkable. It will therefore
be essential to make massive savings, and the most obvious and easy target is the current defense
budget (Onea, 2013).
The second reason follows logically from these dramatic figures. The American taxpayer,
faced with a heartbreaking choice, will opt for internal priorities (Onea, 2013). In 2009, in
response to a question asked every year since 1964 by the polling institute Pew ("In your

BOOK CRITIQUE 6
opinion, should America be more concerned with its own business, internationally?"), A strong
majority answered for the first time in the affirmative. The Americans do not judge, contrary to
Nye (2015), that the repeated interventions of the last 60 years were erroneous. They simply
think that for purely economic reasons it cannot continue (Ullman, 2017). Mr. Mandelbaum, for
his part, believes that adaptation to scarcity will not result in a return to isolationism, but in a
choice of smarter preferences in diplomacy. Monumental errors - such as the enlargement of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the war in Iraq - will be avoided in the future,
and the US presence in the world will shrink significantly (Hook & Spanier, 2013). According to
the author, this is certainly bad news for millions of people around the world (we can think of the
Libyan people for example), but it is a fact.
Conclusion
From the analysis, it is apparent that Mandelbaum objectively revealed the truth about the
situation of the United States. Despite the apprehended consequences of this diminishing role of
the United States vis-à-vis the emerging powers, Mr. Mandelbaum remains optimistic. No power
will replace the United States as a "world government" and there is little chance that the return of
power politics will result in a world war. The geopolitical heart of the world is now in the Middle
East, mainly for oil-related reasons. For the author, the solution of the puzzle is simple: by
massively increasing taxes on US consumption, the price of oil will fall and the oil powers
(Arab, Russian and Venezuelan) will be weakened; the US Treasury will find its account
(Conradi, 2017).

BOOK CRITIQUE 7
References
Betts, R. K. (Ed.). (2017). Conflict after the Cold War: arguments on causes of war and peace.
Taylor & Francis.
Conradi, P. (2017). Who lost Russia?: How the world entered a new Cold War. London, England
: Oneworld Publications Ltd
Gerges, F. A. (2014). Obama and the middle east: The end of america's moment?. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Henderson, N. (2013). Failure of a Mission-Berlin 1937-1939. Read Books Ltd.
Hook, S. W., & Spanier, J. W. (2013). American foreign policy since World War II. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage.
Mandelbaum, M. (2016). Mission failure: America and the world in the post-cold war era.
Oxford University Press.
Mead, W. R. (2013). Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world.
Routledge.
Nye, J. S. (2015). Is the American Century Over?. [Place of publication not identified] : Wiley
Onea, T. A. (2013). US foreign policy in the post-cold war era: Restraint versus assertiveness
from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama. New York, New York : Palgrave Macmillan
Ullman, H. (2017). Anatomy of Failure. Naval Institute Press.
Woodward, B. (2009). McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure,’ Washington Post, 21.